Paul Ryan between a rock and a hard place
My guess is he will be forced out as speaker, regardless of who wins, in 2017. Also Trump holds grudges...how much you want to bet that, especially if Trump doesn't win, he is going to turn his base against Ryan?
Yep...and Trump is ensuring that should Hillary win, she will have to deal with a very volatile section of the populace convinced that she stole the election and is not the lawful leader of this nation
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paul Ryan between a rock and a hard place
My guess is he will be forced out as speaker, regardless of who wins, in 2017. Also Trump holds grudges...how much you want to bet that, especially if Trump doesn't win, he is going to turn his base against Ryan?
I have no sympathy for Ryan and his ilk. The GOP, all of them, even the so-called rational establishment, have been feeding and riding the tiger of bigotry, misogyny, and fear known as the Southern Strategy. They forgot the basic rule of creating a political beast. Once you unleash it, it has no compunctions against biting it's would-be handlers.
I think, for me, the saddest part of all this is that no matter what, Trump wins (he may not get elected, but the Trump media empire that will be built on the outrage of his defeat will make his family billionaire's over and over again).
Trump is not the orgin of this wave of change, he's simply it's logical result. Everyone seems to be on the delusion that Cruz and the rest of the clown car candidates for the Republican Primary are somehow sane and/or moderate.
Since when is liberalism concerned with only American welfare?I don't have time to dig all the links/quotes at the moment, but you do realize that the above quote is 100% Hard Core neoliberalism? How do you think open trade and open borders works out for the vast majority of American workers?
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
NAFTA: 20 years of regret for Mexico
Although, "Millions of Mexicans were displaced from farming, for example, after being forced into competition with subsidized and high-productivity agribusiness in the United States, thanks to NAFTA's rules" and a lot of them ended up as undocumented workers, if not slaves, in the United States, so maybe they count as American* workers now, too.
*Lo siento, estadounidense.
We have local races for Assembly and such The big thing that Democrats are upset now is that Jersey City Mayor Fulop has pulled out of the race for governor... the big issue this year will be a ballot question to allow gambling outside of Atlantic City. Both sides have pretty well funded ad campaigns which makes me wonder who's funding the Anti-Gambling "Don't Trust Trenton" group.I didn't think New Jersey had a Senate race this year.1. New Jerseyans are infamous for ticket splitting. We're a pretty purple state. There are a lot of people who still buy the basic Republican party line and they'll be voting for their local Republicans even if they can't stomach pulling the lever for the Orangeutang himself.It's pretty clear that the Dems aren't going to win the Senate this year, and they'll probably have a major setback in 2018. Clinton hasn't been doing squat to help the downticket races, although quite frankly, as the most disliked nominee in her Party's history, I'm not sure she can.Couple of things.
1) Dems have a pretty good shot of winning the Senate; ticket-splitting is not something that voters really do anymore, so Republicans who dislike Trump but don't want to vote for Clinton might just stay home--which cascades defeat all the way down-ticket. You might also have a Trump-Establishment feud that carries on (many have just called for him to resign his candidacy, and Trump doesn't seem like the type to let that slide) and you get not only a depressed turnout but also anti-establishment Trump supporters who decide to "stick it to the RINOs". Either of these could cost R's the Senate, both together almost certainly would.
I don't know anything about New Jersey politics, but I would wager a substantial amount of money (heh) that is Atlantic City tourism or hospitality interests. Gambling elsewhere means no reason to go there.
The Twitter feud between Ryan and Trump that started this morning resulted in Trump supporters demonstrating outside the RNC headquarters in DC this afternoon.
"It's better to grab a pussy than to be one" is one of the signs. But I think this tweet is pretty accurate "Ben Johnson, 51, not worried about Trump defectors. "They're globalist. It's not GOP vs Dem…it's globalist vs nationalist."
|
I think, for me, the saddest part of all this is that no matter what, Trump wins (he may not get elected, but the Trump media empire that will be built on the outrage of his defeat will make his family billionaire's over and over again).
Eh, I'm still holding out hope that eventually something he can't lie/buy his way out of comes to light and he winds up in a cell next to Bernie Madoff.
I don't know anything about New Jersey politics, but I would wager a substantial amount of money (heh) that is Atlantic City tourism or hospitality interests. Gambling...
Actually that's the argument given FOR expanding gambling outside of Atlantic City. AC has been losing customers to casinos opening in Pennsylvania and on Indian reservations in New York. Several casinos, including Trump's Taj Mahal, have either shuttered their doors, or on the verge of doing so. Folks in those states are finding less reason to drive all the way to the Jersey Shore just to gamble.
As for New Hampshire's Senatorial race, it's looks like Kelly Ayotte's got the lead on Governor Hassan. At least for the moment. Ayotte only distanced herself from Trump post-Pussygate, don't know if that'll end up having any repercussions.
The latest bunch of ads that I've been seeing feature the families of (white) opioid addicts saying how much help Kelly got their sons and daughters, while Maggie's attack the incumbent on security and brag that she opposed Obama's plans to shut down Guantanamo.
But all the Green Party NH peeps are probably going to vote for her downticket.
[sigh]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better than protectionism and warfare.I don't have time to dig all the links/quotes at the moment, but you do realize that the above quote is 100% Hard Core neoliberalism? How do you think open trade and open borders works out for the vast majority of American workers?
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”Last week, I accompanied two Honduran refugees, two Central American solidarity activists and two other gringo supporters to the office of Representative Niki Tsongas to urge her to support the Berta Caceres bill put forward by Georgia's Hank Johnson. The bill, IIRC, calls for the U.S. government to suspend its millions in "security assistance" to Honduras until the latter can clean up its human rights nightmare.
I felt a little icky, because I was essentially lobbying Democrats, and that is not a very revolutionary socialist thing to do, but, anyway, the two refugees testified powerfully about life under the reign of terror there since Hillary, as Secretary of State, legitimized the coup against Manuel Zelaya. Really fun stuff. A 13-year-old getting killed and her arms chopped off by off-duty police officers for participating in a demonstration calling attention to lack of funding in her village's school was probably the high moment.
On the flip side, up until, what? March of this year?, she was in favor of deporting Honduran child refugees.
I guess it's nice to have dreams, though.
How will cutting off trade to Honduras and restricting the movement of workers make their lives better? Is Manuel Zelaya going to become a nicer person if textile manufacturers start pulling out of the country?
Part of the problem with things like NAFTA, is that they allow goods to cross borders, but not people. One of the things Hillary wants to do is open up borders for workers, so that workers have the right to move where jobs are. If Honduras were included in such an arrangement, political refugees wouldn't have to worry about applying for asylum. If their leaders want to run their country into the ground, the people can leave and go to a place with better leaders.
If workers are legal, they can now do things like organize and demand equal pay, instead of companies using their illegal status as a way to artificially drive wages down.
I have no sympathy for Ryan and his ilk. The GOP, all of them, even the so-called rational establishment, have been feeding and riding the tiger of bigotry, misogyny, and fear known as the Southern Strategy. They forgot the basic rule of creating a political beast. Once you unleash it, it has no compunctions against biting it's would-be handlers.Paul Ryan between a rock and a hard place
My guess is he will be forced out as speaker, regardless of who wins, in 2017. Also Trump holds grudges...how much you want to bet that, especially if Trump doesn't win, he is going to turn his base against Ryan?
Yeah, good riddance to Paul Ryan. He deserves much worse for being a dog-whistling granny starver.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think, for me, the saddest part of all this is that no matter what, Trump wins (he may not get elected, but the Trump media empire that will be built on the outrage of his defeat will make his family billionaire's over and over again).Eh, I'm still holding out hope that eventually something he can't lie/buy his way out of comes to light and he winds up in a cell next to Bernie Madoff.
His own brand is imploding. Which is probably why he, Ivanka, and the two sons are launching Scion.
Please Toyota, I know you killed your Scion product line, but please consider suing them over this.
How will cutting off trade to Honduras and restricting the movement of workers make their lives better? Is Manuel Zelaya going to become a nicer person if textile manufacturers start pulling out of the country?
I'm not sure how you got any of that. Also, Zelaya's the one who was spirited away by the army in his pajamas.
I'm not sure how you got any of that. Also, Zelaya was the one spirited out of the country by the army in his pajamas.
You're the one that quoted me as if the two topics were related.
The disparity between Hillary's dreams and what she's actually done are pretty closely related.
Parenthetically, I don't know what plans are going on to include Honduras in a free trade agreement*, but there's some fun stuff going on down there:
---
EDIT*: Apparently, it's already in one. Did not know.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pussygate
(CA, I know you know this so please forgive my setup rant) It isn't that he said "pussy" that is the problem, it's that he describes grabbing someone's without consent. [/rant] So, I think this should be grab-ghazi.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'll get no argument from me that we've continuously screwed over Central America for well over 100 years and continuing to today. I still fail to see how not allowing them to participate in the US economy is going to help them. Draw me the line between zero trade and improving their situation.
I'm in favor of free movement of goods AND labor. Free the people from the governments that want to control them. Let labor control itself. If workers are free to move on their own, the asylum issue goes away.
Edit: even with zero trade, the US government could find ways to f+#! over the people of Honduras. Bringing these issues up isn't an argument against globalization, it's an argument for moral and ethical foreign policy.
Sorry to disappoint, but you'll get no such line drawings from me.
My point was that it's nice to relate your dreams of a free trade paradise to Wall Street banksters, but her record of promoting hemispheric open borders with opportunity for all is, well, something else.
I replied to your post, well, because I came late to that bit of the conversation and it seemed like a good place to drop my thoughts on the matter.
Used up my last Nation article until I try the incognito trick on:
Ooh, I didn't know there was another "Constitutional coup" in Latin America that Hillary's State Department helped out. I'll have to go read about Paraguay, I guess.
Also it's got a recommending reading list for articles on the Clintons and Haiti. The one I linked above made the grade!
Oh I just saw this:
Clinton Campaign: Hillary’s Previous Support Of Open Borders Is About ‘Energy Policy’:
Hillary Clinton said “her dream” is a “hemispheric common market” with “open borders” in a 2013 private speech to a Brazilian bank, according to a leaked transcript. Her campaign told The Daily Caller Sunday that comment was about “energy policy.”
“She does not support an open borders immigration policy,” Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said to TheDC after the second presidential debate. “What she has talked about in the past in having a multi-national approach to promoting clean energy so we have transmission systems that allow us to promote and transfer clean energy from North America to South America.”
Guess I gave her too much credit in thinking that her dreams of open borders had to do with people. And I guess she didn't give that speech to Wall Street.
Hey man, have you ever thought about what it would be like if the ones who ran society were, like, the freaks, and the freaks were, like, the ones who ran society?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought about what it would be like if we had a D&D system of alignment running the government. It might work better...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you imagine how expensive it would be to maintain magical unhallowed defenses in the Capitol Building strong enough to ward out the waves of attacking paladins?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, good riddance to Paul Ryan. He deserves much worse for being a dog-whistling granny starver.I have no sympathy for Ryan and his ilk. The GOP, all of them, even the so-called rational establishment, have been feeding and riding the tiger of bigotry, misogyny, and fear known as the Southern Strategy. They forgot the basic rule of creating a political beast. Once you unleash it, it has no compunctions against biting it's would-be handlers.Paul Ryan between a rock and a hard place
My guess is he will be forced out as speaker, regardless of who wins, in 2017. Also Trump holds grudges...how much you want to bet that, especially if Trump doesn't win, he is going to turn his base against Ryan?
But however will the disciples of Ayn Rand survive the fall of their choir boy?
Wait, never mind that. I just remembered, I don't give a damn about Ryan, or his Randian apostles.
Considering how much money the US spends on military? Not as much as it would to find waves of attacking paladins...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought about what it would be like if we had a D&D system of alignment running the government. It might work better...
I bet there'd be immediate bipartisan cooperation to return to the original Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic system, removing good and evil from consideration entirely. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. All you'd get is people who are CE on social issues but LG on fiscal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sissyl,
I'd rather get LG on ALL issues.
Over the weekend I found it hard not to harbor "Trump-is-a-Clintonite-catspaw-to-wreck-the-GOP" conspiracy theory thoughts.
I was just on Facebook and saw all the Green Party NH peeps passing along one of the latest WikiLeaks leaks in which the Clinton campaign discussed the desirability of running against either Trump, Carson or Cruz. It was a photo, so I went looking for articles and found this piece in The Observer.
WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton
The title is a bit clickbait-y, and some of the links go weird places, but I liked the idea of an article in Trump's son-in-law's paper blaming Hillary and the Democrats for Trump's rise.
---
Nope, I guess it was in Friday's leak.
Leaked Emails Show That Trump Was A Tool Used By The Hillary Campaign From Day One
And I guess the title isn't clickbait; it's referencing the email: "'We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,' it said in the email."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Clinton was the candidate they'd have preferred to run against. After all, they've spent years demonizing her, yet she still won a Senate seat, ran a competitive primary for president, and served as Secretary of State.
My impression was that the GOP was hoping to get Sanders (including claims of crossover voting in states with open primaries), knowing that he had very little national name recognition, so they could define him as an extremist. I would bet money that if Sanders had won, we'd have seen a Red Scare style ad blitz bracketing the convention.
Honestly both candidates were probably considered ideal for the Republicans to run against. A demonized Clinton or a scary socialist are both effective for getting out the vote from people who lean right in any way whatsoever. Trump is just one of the weakest candidates I can imagine for the GOP to pick, and its hilarious that is who the party ended up with.
My only problem with a scenario where team Clinton used Trump to destroy the GOP would be the risk of it getting out of hand. However, you can't argue with results.Getting out of hand and damaging the country as well as the Republican party, as it actually has. OTOH, it's not really clear how much effect Clinton's efforts had. It's easy to give such efforts more credit than they deserve.
They're far more common too. It's basic politics to try to influence who your opponents will be. Republicans were salivating to run against Clinton, who they've spent decades demonizing. I'd also be shocked if, once she was the clear frontrunner, they didn't try to prop Sanders up to keep the race going and damage her.
And this is far different from the early conspiracy theories of Trump as deliberate Clinton puppet.
Trump isn't the tool that wrecked the GOP. He's merely an end result. Nearly every single one of the other candidates in that clown car rated high on the Despicable Index. (Except for Kasich, but there isn't really much evidence that he was there for any reason, but for all the free food he could eat.) Trump is simply the natural product of the whole GOP-Fox media-political complex. He was a walking spectacle before he became a candidate, and his campaign was a simple reflection of the fact that the media fell over themselves to give him free publicity for every antic he pulled. Much more than an actor who turned governor before becoming President, or the southerner who opened up his candidacy by playing the sax on a New York City talk show, Trump is literally the Entertainment Candidate.
And I really think that all of this talk of the GOP ending as a party is media hyperbole. They were saying the same thing when Clinton swept his way into two terms. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that when it comes to state and local governments, there's a massive sea of Red on the USA map. That ain't going away just because of one clown.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GOP isn't in trouble because of one clown and they still have a lot of power in many states and the gerrymandered House and the rurally biased Senate. They are in long term trouble due to changing demographics and social mores. They will need to change or die and so far, despite some top-down attempts, they've doubled down on their base.
It's a feedback trap I don't see how they'll escape. With every cycle the base gets smaller and more extreme. Trump just accelerated the process.
Things like this have happened before. America has always had a two party duopoly, but it hasn't always been the same two parties. The Republicans after all became a big deal after the collapse of the Whigs.
Things like this have happened before. America has always had a two party duopoly, but it hasn't always been the same two parties. The Republicans after all became a big deal after the collapse of the Whigs.The GOP isn't in trouble because of one clown and they still have a lot of power in many states and the gerrymandered House and the rurally biased Senate. They are in long term trouble due to changing demographics and social mores. They will need to change or die and so far, despite some top-down attempts, they've doubled down on their base.
It's a feedback trap I don't see how they'll escape. With every cycle the base gets smaller and more extreme. Trump just accelerated the process.
Sure, but "someone will replace them when they collapse" isn't happy news for the current republican establishment.
Sure, but "someone will replace them when they collapse" isn't happy news for the current republican establishment.Things like this have happened before. America has always had a two party duopoly, but it hasn't always been the same two parties. The Republicans after all became a big deal after the collapse of the Whigs.The GOP isn't in trouble because of one clown and they still have a lot of power in many states and the gerrymandered House and the rurally biased Senate. They are in long term trouble due to changing demographics and social mores. They will need to change or die and so far, despite some top-down attempts, they've doubled down on their base.
It's a feedback trap I don't see how they'll escape. With every cycle the base gets smaller and more extreme. Trump just accelerated the process.
Like I said, they created the situation, they made the bed... they can go lie in it.
They will. When and if a new party seems ready to take over after a discredited GOP, where do you think the political survivors from said GOP will go? Yeah.
My only problem with a scenario where team Clinton used Trump to destroy the GOP would be the risk of it getting out of hand. However, you can't argue with results.Getting out of hand and damaging the country as well as the Republican party, as it actually has. OTOH, it's not really clear how much effect Clinton's efforts had. It's easy to give such efforts more credit than they deserve.
They're far more common too. It's basic politics to try to influence who your opponents will be. Republicans were salivating to run against Clinton, who they've spent decades demonizing. I'd also be shocked if, once she was the clear frontrunner, they didn't try to prop Sanders up to keep the race going and damage her.
And this is far different from the early conspiracy theories of Trump as deliberate Clinton puppet.
Trump isn't the tool that wrecked the GOP. He's merely an end result. Nearly every single one of the other candidates in that clown car rated high on the Despicable Index. (Except for Kasich, but there isn't really much evidence that he was there for any reason, but for all the free food he could eat.) Trump is simply the natural product of the whole GOP-Fox media-political complex. He was a walking spectacle before he became a candidate, and his campaign was a simple reflection of the fact that the media fell over themselves to give him free publicity for every antic he pulled. Much more than an actor who turned governor before becoming President, or the southerner who opened up his candidacy by playing the sax on a New York City talk show, Trump is literally the Entertainment Candidate.
And I really think that all of this talk of the GOP ending as a party is media hyperbole. They were saying the same thing when Clinton swept his way into two terms. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that when it comes to state and local governments, there's a massive sea of Red on the USA map. That ain't going away just because of one clown.
Rand wasn't really despicable. Of all the major party candidates, I found him to be the most palatable. Though that of course meant that he had no chance, just like everything else I support in my life...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They will. When and if a new party seems ready to take over after a discredited GOP, where do you think the political survivors from said GOP will go? Yeah.
Well, with any luck we can use the power vacuum on the right to drag the US about 30-40 degrees back to the left to actually have a left of center part again, and the whatever-replaces-the-GOP will look more like the republican party under Nixon/Reagan or even *gasp* Eisenhower.
They will. When and if a new party seems ready to take over after a discredited GOP, where do you think the political survivors from said GOP will go? Yeah.Well, with any luck we can use the power vacuum on the right to drag the US about 30-40 degrees back to the left to actually have a left of center part again, and the whatever-replaces-the-GOP will look more like the republican party under Nixon/Reagan or even *gasp* Eisenhower.
Maybe the Libertarians can capitalize on this by putting out someone who's not crazy or inept for once. What's that? They nominated Gary Johnson? Never mind.
Trump gets pwned by Sputnik
Russian propaganda outlet called Sputnik — which is intended for an audience of alt-right types and that appears to be behind the conspiracy theory that Trump cited about Clinton’s “creating” ISIS — took these quotes out of context, claimed that Blumenthal wrote them and used it all to stoke hatred of Clinton from both the right and the misogynist left.
But even a Breitbart-style propaganda outfit run by Putin loyalists has some standards, so the article on Sputnik was swiftly taken down on the grounds that it was too misleading.
But not before Trump got his hands on it and was reading it on Monday night before a swooning crowd of people who are terrifyingly easy to manipulate with Russian propaganda.